ITcon Vol. 14 (2009), Sher et al, pg. 17

www.itcon.org - Journal of Information Technology in Construction - ISSN 1874-4753

HEADING INTO NEW VIRTUAL ENVIRONMENTS: WHAT SKILLS DO DESIGN TEAM MEMBERS NEED? PUBLISHED: March 2009 at http://www.itcon.org/2009/04 EDITORS: K. Ruikar & S. Emmitt

William Sher, University of Newcastle, Australia willy.sher@newcastle.edu.au

Sue Sherratt, Dr, University of Newcastle, Australia sue.sherratt@newcastle.edu.au

Anthony Williams, Assoc Prof University of Newcastle, Australia tony.williams@newcastle.edu.au

Rod Gameson, Dr, University of Wolverhampton, UK rod.gameson@wlv.ac.ak

SUMMARY: Information and Communication Technology (ICT) is increasingly being integrated in the design and management of construction projects. Not only are sophisticated electronic tools being widely used to help construction professionals design and manage buildings - ICT is assisting these people to work in virtual, collaborative electronic environments. As a result there is a trend to move from co-located to virtual team collaboration. The operational differences inherent in these environments and their impact on the generic skills of design professionals are the basis of the research reported here. We developed a generic skills coding framework for the activities of designers working in virtual teams. We then audio and video recorded designers working in teams designing different buildings and analysed the resulting data using our generic skills framework. We identified changes in the skills profiles of design team members between different operational states (low bandwidth-high bandwidth). The major conclusion of our analysis is that there are significant differences between the operational conditions: face-to-face, whiteboard and 3D virtual world, for the generic skills profiles.

KEYWORDS: Design Teams, Generic Skills, Virtual Teams.

COPYRIGHT: © 2009 The authors. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 unported (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

1. INTRODUCTION Recent developments in virtual communication technologies have the potential to dramatically improve collaboration in the construction industry (Gameson & Sher, 2002). Furthermore, virtual teams “hold significant promise for organizations that implement them because they enable unprecedented levels of flexibility and responsiveness.” (Powell, Piccoli, & Ives, 2004, p. 6). Indeed, some authors observe that virtual teams are here to stay (Bell & Kozlowski, 2002). However, the skills required to work productively in virtual environments are presently ill-defined.

Our studies were part of a project which examined the use of information and computer technologies (ICTs) to facilitate design / construction team interactions. They were funded by the Australian Cooperative Research Centre for Construction Innovation (Maher, 2002) and focused on the early stages of design / construction

ITcon Vol. 14 (2009), Sher et al, pg. 18

collaboration where designs for a building are created, developed and revised. Three aspects of collaboration in virtual environments were investigated: (i) the technological processes that enable effective collaboration using these technologies; (ii) the models that allow disciplines to share their views in a synchronous virtual environment; (iii) the generic skills used by individuals and teams when engaging with high bandwidth ICT. The last strand of these investigations was investigated by the authors and is reported on here. Details of the other strands of this project may be found at the project website (Maher, 2002).

2. VIRTUAL TEAMWORK There are numerous definitions of teams. For this paper teams are defined as a cluster of two or more people usually occupying different roles and skill levels that interact “…adaptively, interdependently, and dynamically towards a common and valued goal” (Salas, Shawn Burke, & Cannon-Bowers, 2000, p. 341). At present the term “virtual teams” is used by different authors to mean different things. A more detailed exploration of the various facets of virtual teams is provided by (Dubé & Paré, 2004) and is summarised in Table 1. Virtual teams may differ significantly depending upon these aspects and Dubé & Paré suggest that this table could also be used as a diagnostic tool to help assess the level of complexity in a virtual team. The profile of the participants in this investigation is detailed later in this paper.

TABLE 1: Key Characteristics of Virtual Teams (Dubé & Paré, 2004) CHARACTERISTICS

DEGREE OF COMPLEXITY LOW <> HIGH

Degree of reliance on ICT Low reliance

High reliance

ICT availability High variety

Low variety

…related to the basics of virtual

teamwork

Members’ ICT Proficiency High Low Team size Small Large

Geographic dispersion (physical proximity)

Local Global

Task or project duration Long term Short term Prior shared work experience Extensive

experience No

experience Members’ assignments Full-time Part-time Membership stability Stable

membership Fluid

membership Task interdependence Low

interdependence High

interdependence

…related to the complexity of

virtual teamwork

Cultural diversity (national, organizational, professional)

Homogeneous Heterogeneous

3. GENERIC SKILLS There is still much discussion about the core set of knowledge, skills and abilities that constitute teamwork (Salas et al., 2000). We sought to contribute to this debate by identifying the skills that transferred from a traditional face to face (F2F) environment and the ones that required refining for virtual environments. Furthermore, we wished to identify if virtual teamworkers needed any new skills. As a starting point, we investigated the generic skills workers acquire and use on a daily basis. Generic skills are defined by Salas et al (2000: p, 344) as, “…the knowledge, skills and attitudes that a team member possesses when completing a task or communicating with fellow members, whether in a co-located or virtual environment”. Generic skills influence both individuals and teams; they are skills which are “…transportable and applicable across teams.” (Salas et al., 2000, p. 344). A review of generic skills (Cannon-Bowers, Tannenbaum, Salas, & Volpe, 1995) was used to identify the generic skills used by design team members and is summarised in Table 2.

To examine the skills designers use it is necessary to understand the content of their interactions. A number of techniques facilitate such insights including Protocol Analysis and Content Analysis. Protocol Analysis attempts to infer cognitive processes by examining verbal interactions (Ericsson & Simon, 1993) but has been found to be a limited means of identifying non-verbal design cognition. Even where some comparisons are discovered, a large degree of interpretation is required (Cross, Christiaans, & Dorst, 1996). The subjectivity of analysis and the length of time required to complete analysis also call into question the appropriateness of this method.

ITcon Vol. 14 (2009), Sher et al, pg. 19

TABLE 2: Integrated Skills (as adapted from Cannon-Bowers et al 1995) Core Generic Skills Definition Sub skills Adaptability The use of compensatory behaviour

and reallocation of resources to adjust strategies based on feedback

• Flexibility • Compensatory behaviour • Dynamic reallocation of functions

Shared situational awareness

When team members have compatible mental models of the environment within and outside of the team.

• Orientation • Team awareness • System awareness

Performance monitoring and feedback

Ability of team members to give, seek and receive task clarifying feedback.

• Performance feedback • Acceptance • Mutual performance monitoring • Procedure maintenance

Team management: Project management/leadership

Ability to direct and co-ordinate the activities of other team members particularly pertaining to performance, tasks, motivation, and creation of a positive environment.

• Task structuring • Motivation of others • Goal setting • Goal orientation

Interpersonal relations Ability to optimise the quality of team members’ interactions.

• Conflict resolution • Assertiveness • Moral building

Co-ordination Process, by which team resources, activities and responses are organized to ensure that tasks are integrated, synchronized and completed within established temporal constraints.

• Task organisation • Task interaction • Timing

Communication Information exchange between members using the prescribed manner and terminology.

• Information exchange • Consulting with others

Decision making Ability to gather and integrate information, use sound judgment, identify alternatives, select the best solution, and evaluate the consequences.

• Problem assessment • Problem solving • Planning • Implementation

Content Analysis, according to (Wallace, 1987), involves coding transcripts of communications in terms of frequency analyses because the underlying assumption is that “the verbal content produced by the individual is representative of the thought processes at work in his or her mind” (p. 121).

Several content analysis techniques were used to identify and interpret these thought processes and thereby to investigate the generic skills our participants used. We explored micro-level communication processes because these “can provide valuable insights to managers and researchers alike about how to ‘read’ the health of teams…” (Kanawattanachai & Yoo, 2002: p. 210). We identified quantitative content analysis as an effective means of identifying the generic skills of designers. This necessitated the development of a framework by which our data could be coded. Behavioural marker studies (Klampfer et al., 2001) (Carthey, de Leval, Wright, Farewell, & Reason, 2003) provided a template for our generic skills coding framework. Behavioural markers are observable non-technical “…aspects of individual and team performance” (Carthey et al, 2003: p. 411) which are related to the effectiveness of an individual and team. The methods for creating behavioural markers informed the development of our framework. In accordance with Klampfer et al’s (2001) recommendations, we devised a system that provided simple, clear markers, used appropriate professional terminology, and emphasised observable behaviours rather than ambiguous attitudes or opinions. The Anaesthetists’ Non-Technical Skills (ANTS) (Fletcher et al., 2003) system was informative and helped shape our coding system. Using the ANTS system allowed us to incorporate the skills in Table 2 into the Generic Skills coding scheme shown in Table 4.

ITcon Vol. 14 (2009), Sher et al, pg. 20

In addition to the Generic Skills analysis presented here, three other techniques were used to analyse the data:

1. Bales’s Interaction Process Analysis (Bales, 1951) - to analyse the interactions between design team members, so that aspects such as decision-making, communication and control could be examined.

2. A Communication Technique Framework (Williams & Cowdroy, 2002) – to investigate the techniques which the designers used to communicate.

3. Linguistic analyses - to evaluate the communication occurring in teamwork. The approach adopted was derived from systemic functional linguistic theory (Halliday & Matthiessen, 2004).

At this stage we have analysed the data from each approach independently and these will be reported in papers currently being prepared.

The aims of this study were to identity and examine the generic skills which facilitate teamwork in three settings, ranging from face-to-face to 3D virtual environments. Teamwork occurred during the conceptual stages of designing construction projects.

3.1 Data Collection Video and audio recordings of designers collaborating in teams were collected using Noldus Observer Pro (Burfield, Cadee, Grieco, Mayton, & Spink, 2003) to store, code and analyse our data. Noldus is ethnographic video analysis software which facilitates the collection, management, analysis and presentation of observational data. It allows researchers to view video footage and score the frequency of specific behaviours, and to note how these behaviours interact with each other or with independent variables. The advantages of such recordings include: being able to review interactions and behaviours as well as being able to compare different coders’ or viewers’ interpretations (Guerlain, Turrentine, Adams, & Forrest Calland, 2004).

3.2 Participants It is often the case that design team members are drawn from different backgrounds/cultures, ages, and experience (Marchman III, 1998), especially in multi-disciplinary design teams collaborating on an entire project. Stratified purposive sampling (Rice & Ezzy, 1999) was therefore used to select a heterogenous group of ten participants. This method of sampling ensured that the diversity of the participants was reflective, as far as possible, of the actuality of design teams in the real world. Participants were both male and female, of varying ages, cultures and had differing levels of experience and influence, ranging from higher management to junior staff. Due to constraints imposed by the funding body, recruitment of participants was limited to organisations within the Cooperative Research Centre for Construction Innovation (CRC-CI). The pool of eligible participants was further constrained by work pressures eventually resulting in participants being recruited solely from the discipline of architecture.

3.3 Task Data were collected in three experimental conditions:

• Traditional face-to-face collaborative design between the design team members (including interactions such as talking and sketching).

• Virtual design using a shared electronic whiteboard (incorporating synchronous audio and visual communication) which allowed drawings, images and text to be shared.

• Virtual design using a high bandwidth 3D virtual world (Activeworlds-Corporation, 2008) (incorporating synchronous audio communication) which allowed drawings, images and text to be shared. This tool represents team members as “avatars” and allowed them to manipulate 3D representations of a design and communicate using audio as well as text “chat” facilities.

Designers were grouped into five teams of two and asked to prepare conceptual designs that responded to various briefs. These briefs related to fictional projects on an actual site at Sydney University, Australia. Depending on the session, designers were asked to design an art gallery, a hostel, a library or a dance school for the site. The participants were then given 30 minutes to prepare their designs using one of the three experimental conditions. Prior to each design session the research team spent one to two hours coaching the designers in the capabilities of the whiteboard and 3D virtual world technologies. Once designers were familiar with the hardware and software, they were asked to prepare their designs. Typical characteristics of the virtual teamwork involved in these tasks are presented in Table 3 using Dubé & Paré’s (2004) framework.

ITcon Vol. 14 (2009), Sher et al, pg. 21

TABLE 3: Typical Characteristics of Virtual Teams Engaged in this Project (adapted from Dubé & Paré, 2004) DEGREE OF COMPLEXITY

LOW <> HIGH

Degree of reliance on ICT Low Varies High ICT availability High X Low Members’ ICT Proficiency High X Low Team size Small X Large Geographic dispersion Local X Global Task or project duration Long term X Short term Prior shared work experience

Extensive X None

Members’ assignments Full-time X Part-time Membership stability Stable X Fluid Task interdependence Low X High Cultural diversity Homogeneous Varies Heterogeneous

All tasks were conducted in an identical sequence (i.e. participants first worked “face-to-face”, then used a “whiteboard” and finally designed in the “3D virtual world”). This procedure was prescribed by our research directorate and was designed primarily for the first two strands of our overall research project (Maher, 2002). We are conscious that participants may have become familiar with aspects of the tasks that they were asked to complete, and may also have become fatigued (Pring, 2005). As the designers gained experience of working together, one would assume they would be able to work more effectively over time. If this is so, their final collaboration would have been the optimal one and this would have occurred when they were designing in the 3D virtual world. Conversely, if they had become fatigued or bored, their last task performed would have been the one most affected. It is thus not possible to determine whether sequence affected the outcomes of this research.

3.4 Coding of Data All interactions were coded using the framework shown in Table 4 resulting in 4611 entries. Noldus provided each entry with a time stamp, and allowed entry of a subject code, an observable behaviour and a non-technical skill representative of that observable behaviour (see Figure 1).

ITcon Vol. 14 (2009), Sher et al, pg. 22

FIG 1: Screen Showing Coding of Video Data in Noldus Observer Pro

The resulting scores were statistically analysed using a Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance parametric test to establish the differences between participants’ performance on the three tasks (traditional face-to-face design, virtual design using a electronic whiteboard, and virtual design using a high bandwidth 3D virtual world) (Riedlinger, Gallois, McKay, & Pittam, 2004). The results of the ANOVA tests were interpreted using Mauchly’s Test of Sphericity which examines the covariance of the dependent samples. The data were also examined to determine which shift in condition (i.e. face-to-face to whiteboard or whiteboard to 3D virtual world) was responsible for any significance. SPSS Version 12 was used for all statistical analyses. Intra-reliability was established for the generic skills coding scheme on a 35-minute session using Noldus Observer Pro. Point-by-point agreement was 81% and 80% on the frequency of coding strings and frequency and sequence of the coding strings, respectively. These were both at or above the minimum acceptable level of 80% (Kazdin, 1982).

ITcon Vol. 14 (2009), Sher et al, pg. 23

TABLE 4: Generic Skills Coding Scheme Generic skills Sub-skills Code Observable Behaviour

Planning or preparing a task A11 Outlines and describes the plan/brief for a design A12 Reviews a design after changes are made A13 Describes actions required once design is completed Prioritising tasks A21 Assigns priority to design tasks to be completed A22 Prioritises the segments within design tasks

A31 Follows design protocols and briefs Providing direction and maintaining standards for the task A32 Cross checks the completion of design tasks

A41 Identifies and allocates resources A42 Allocates tasks to team members

Task Management

Identifying and utilising resources

A43 Requests additional resources B11 Confirms roles and responsibilities of team members B12 Discusses design with others B13 Considers requirements of others before acting

Co-ordinating activities with team members

B14 Co-operates with others to achieve goals Exchanging information B21 Gives updates and reports key events B22 Confirms shared understanding B23 Communicates design plans and relevant information B24 Clearly documents design

B31 Is appropriately and necessarily assertive B32 Takes appropriate leadership B33 States case for instruction and gives justification

Using authority and assertiveness

B34 Gives clear instructions Assessing capabilities B41 Asks for assistance B42 Asks team member about experience B43 Notices that a team member does not complete a task to an

appropriate standard Supporting others B51 Acknowledges concerns of others B52 Reassures / encourages B53 Debriefs

Team Working

B54 Anticipates when others will need information Gathering information C11 Asks for information or artefacts relating to a design C12 Checks on the status of a project and tasks C13 Collects information regarding a problem C14 Cross checks and double checks information Recognising and understanding C21 Describes seriousness or urgency of task C22 Pays close attention to advice of fellow member Anticipating C31 Takes action to avoid future problems

Shared Situational Awareness

C32 Reviews effects of a change Identifying options D11 Discusses design options with clients/other designers D12 Discusses various techniques for the design

D21 Weighs up risks associated with different designs Balancing risks and selecting options D22 Implements chosen design

Decision Making

Re-evaluating D31 Re-evaluates chosen design technique after it has been chosen

4. RESULTS

4.1 Generic Skills The generic skill Shared Situational Awareness increased significantly (F(2, 8) = 4.903, p < .05). The Within-Subject Contrasts test indicated a significant difference between face-to-face and whiteboard conditions (F(1, 4) = 19.478, p < .05).

For the skill of Decision Making, there was a significant decrease (F(2, 8) = 42.431, p < .001) in frequency as the

ITcon Vol. 14 (2009), Sher et al, pg. 24

design conditions moved from low to high bandwidth conditions. The Within-Subject Contrasts test demonstrated a significant difference between both the face-to-face to whiteboard and whiteboard to 3D virtual world (F(1, 4) = 120.274, p < .001 and F(1, 4) = 8.685, p < .05 respectively).

For the skill of Task Management, the decrease in frequency from face-to-face to whiteboard approached significance (F(1, 4) = 4.799, p > .1).

4.2 Observable Behaviours The following five observable skills (see Figure 2) were significantly affected by the experimental conditions:

• A11 (“Outlines and describes the plan/brief for the design” indicative of Task Management). There was a significant decrease (F(2, 8) = 9.021, p < .05) in the incidence of this behaviour from low to high bandwidth levels. The Within-Subjects Contrasts test indicates that the move from face-to-face to whiteboard was significant (F(1, 4) = 7.943, p < .05).

FIG 2: Frequency of Significant Observable Behaviours A11, B21, B33, C11, D11, in 3 Conditions

• B21 (“Gives updates and reports key events”, demonstrating Team Working). This behaviour increased significantly (F(2, 6) = 6.343, p < .05) as the design process moved from low to high bandwidth. Furthermore, the difference between face-to-face and whiteboard conditions was significant (F(1, 3) = 16.734, p < .05).

• B33 (“States case for instruction and gives justification”, also demonstrating Team Working). The movement from low to high bandwidth demonstrated a significant decrease in this behaviour (F(2, 6) = 5.362, p < .05). A significant difference between whiteboard and 3D virtual world was found to be approaching significance (F(1, 3) = 5.642, p = .098).

• C11 (“Asks for documents and/or information regarding a design” indicating Shared Situational Awareness). This increased significantly as the design process moved from low to high bandwidth (F(2, 8) = 5.526, p < .05). The Within-Subjects Contrasts test showed a significant change (F(1, 4) = 15.751, p < .05) for the shift from face-to-face to whiteboard conditions.

• D11 (“Discusses design options with clients/other designers” demonstrating Decision-Making). As the design collaborators shifted from low to high bandwidth, the frequency of the behaviour decreased significantly (F(2, 8) = 25.383, p < .001). In addition, significant differences were also

ITcon Vol. 14 (2009), Sher et al, pg. 25

found between face-to-face and whiteboard and whiteboard and 3D virtual world (F(1, 4) = 46.24, p < .05 and F(1, 4) = 8.095, p < .05, respectively).

In addition, two other statistical results from the generic skill Team Working are worth noting:-

• B23 (Communicates design plans and relevant information to relevant members). The Within-Subjects Contrasts test indicates that the mean frequency of B23 reduced significantly (F(1, 4) = 23.774 p < .05) between the face-to-face and whiteboard conditions.

• B52 (Reassures/Encourages) was the only observable behaviour that approached significance (F(2, 8) = 3.462 p < .1). The decrease in frequency of this behaviour between whiteboard and 3D virtual world (F(1, 4) = 5.956 p < .1) is also approaching significance.

Changes in the incidence of the remaining observable behaviours were non-significant, in some cases due to limited or non-existent data.

5. DISCUSSION This study examined the generic skills of five design teams in three settings: face-to-face and two levels of virtual technology (viz. whiteboard and 3D virtual world). The behaviours underpinning the generic skills designers use during the conceptual stages of a variety of projects were recorded and analysed. The major findings were a significant increase in the frequency of Shared Situational Awareness and a significant decrease in Decision Making as bandwidth conditions increased.

5.1 Shared Situational Awareness There was a significant and consistent increase in Shared Situational Awareness as the design process moved from low to high bandwidth as well as a significant increase between face-to-face and whiteboard conditions. This generic skill incorporates the sub-skills of gathering information, recognising and understanding as well as anticipating. One of this skill’s observable behaviours (C11 “asks for documents and/or information regarding an idea or design”) increased significantly as bandwidth increased and also between face-to face and whiteboard conditions. This behaviour is associated with information gathering and involves designers asking questions about a design, a site, an idea or an artefact. An increase in the frequency of this behaviour may indicate escalating levels of uncertainty (Gay & Lentini, 1995; Kayworth & Leidner, 2000) and it is conceivable that moving to unfamiliar design environments may have engendered such concerns. Furthermore, designing in 2D is markedly different from designing in 3D. Many designers traditionally work in 2D, and this approach is conveniently facilitated by whiteboard technologies. 3D virtual environments provide additional challenges as few designers have worked in them before. So, not only do 3D environments require designers to exercise their visualisation skills in a more complex way, they require them to use new tools (e.g. avatars, 3D geometric modelling tools etc) to express their conceptual designs. An increase in the incidence of C11 is therefore understandable. From this result, it could be extrapolated that design teams comprised of members from a variety of disciplines would have even greater difficulty in Shared Situational Awareness.

This increased need to establish a shared awareness suggests that design collaborators became unsure of their interpretations of communications and so request additional confirmation. We suggest that design collaborators need to supply more detailed descriptions of what they are proposing or attempting to do and continually relate this to the specific task at hand. Virtual environments make it possible to communicate but the efficiency of such interactions and the level of shared understanding between individuals is not always assured. A way to enrich such communications is to use multiple communication channels or modes simultaneously (Gay & Lentini, 1995; Kayworth & Leidner, 2000). Instead of relying on a single mode of communication it is advantageous to support such communication with artefacts, such as sketches, as designers do in face-to-face situations. Verbal commentary is another way to enhance virtual communication. Where these environments support audio communication, verbal commentary and / or explanation provides valuable supplementary support. We therefore recommend that multiple modes of communication be used concurrently to increase shared understanding between design team members in virtual conditions.

5.2 Decision Making There was a significant and consistent decrease in the frequency of Decision Making as design processes moved from low to high bandwidth and also between face to face and whiteboard, and between whiteboard and 3D. The sub-skills associated with this generic skill are identifying options, balancing risks and selecting options, and re-evaluating. The behaviour “discusses design options with clients/other designers” demonstrated a similarly significant decrease. The reduced frequency of such interactions suggests that designers using virtual environments more readily accept design proposals as solutions and do not explore as many alternatives as they

ITcon Vol. 14 (2009), Sher et al, pg. 26

would have had they been communicating face-to-face. It would seem that, because of the sometimes cumbersome nature of virtual communication, designers working in virtual environments find it more convenient to accept ideas rather than engage in discussions to explore alternative solutions. We therefore speculate that in virtual environments some designers’ perspectives may not be offered for discussion, that when they do their ideas may not be acknowledged and / or explored, and that as a consequence, the quality of solutions may suffer. It is therefore important for designers working in virtual contexts to recognise the potential limitations of their solutions, and to challenge the proposals of their colleagues.

5.3 Other Notable Results The generic skill of Task Management demonstrated a decrease between face-to-face and whiteboard conditions that approached significance whilst there was a significant decrease in the behaviour of outlining and describing the plan/brief for the design. Task Management incorporates the sub-skills of planning or preparing a task, prioritising tasks, providing direction and maintaining standards for the task, and identifying and utilising resources. Management of virtual teams is acknowledged as being challenging (Kayworth & Leidner, 2000) and it may well be that the results apparent here relate to the small team size and personal management style of those involved.

Team Working skills incorporate co-ordinating activities with team members, exchanging information, using authority and assertiveness, assessing capabilities and supporting others. In demonstrating this generic skill, team members increased the frequency of giving updates and reporting key events significantly, whilst they significantly less frequently stated the case for instruction or gave justification as they working in higher bandwidth conditions. The change in condition from face-to-face to whiteboard resulted in significantly more updates and reports of key events, as well as significantly fewer design plans and relevant information being communicated to relevant members. In contrast, the move from whiteboard to 3D virtual environments resulted in the change towards fewer reassuring or encouraging comments and towards more stating of the case for instruction and giving justification approaching significance. This skill thus appears to present opportunities for further investigations. There are clearly many factors influencing designers’ behaviours here and further investigations to distil contributions and interactions should provide interesting insights.

6. LIMITATIONS The following are the main limitations of this study:

• Small sample size. Whilst the number of interactions analysed was large, the number of design teams analysed was relatively small (5). Each set of design tasks took 3.5 to 4 hours (including training and preparation) and proved challenging to organise. The fact that only five design teams took part is indicative of the difficulties involved in arranging the sessions. Whilst it is difficult to generalise the findings of such a modest sample to the wider population, the use of purposive sampling has permitted an exploration of the diverse nature of design teams.

• The data were collected under laboratory conditions. It was not possible to video designers working at their normal place of work, nor was it possible to record their work on real-life design projects. Although the designs the participants were asked to work were fictitious, they represented possible design projects. It is difficult to determine the relative differences in complexity between the five projects provided.

• Due to the fact that participants were selected from a restricted pool of design professionals, all participants were from one discipline (architecture). Whilst our results may reflect the teamwork culture of the architectural profession, multi-disciplinary design teams may have experienced even more difficulty in exercising generic skills in virtual environments.

7. IMPLICATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH An ability to map and measure the generic skills of individuals and teams is crucial for the construction/design industry because it allows specific training needs to be identified. Without a direction, those seeking to improve virtual teamwork may or may not succeed.

Virtual environments do not support non-verbal interactions as effectively as co-located conditions do and this deficiency inevitably leads designers to use different skills and/or skills in a different manner. A number of future research directions stem from this, including further examination of non-verbal interactions, team protocols and the possible impact of prior experience of ICT systems.

It is essential that designers understand the characteristics of the different environments in which they find

ITcon Vol. 14 (2009), Sher et al, pg. 27

themselves working. Specific generic skills may be needed for team members to function efficiently and effectively, particularly in virtual, high-bandwidth design environments. By examining the effects of technology on these generic skills, the particular strategies which facilitate and hinder teamwork when different levels of technology are used, can be ascertained. These strategies can then be incorporated into the briefing and training sessions provided to construction design teams as they move to make greater use of electronic whiteboards, 3D virtual worlds and other technologies. In this context it is pertinent to note that currently training usually focuses on the use of new software and hardware, rather than on the generic skills that facilitate communication and collaboration. There is clearly a need to raise designers’ awareness of the skills required for effective virtual collaboration, and to this end we have developed an interactive CD to assist those new to working in virtual environments (Newcastle, 2008; Williams & Sher, 2007). Additional skills development tools would provide valuable continuing professional development opportunities for design professionals.

Although the method documented in this paper has highlighted some aspects of the generic skills used by teams of designers, additional techniques are likely to reveal nuances that have eluded this approach. For example, in-depth linguistic analyses, and analyses based on Bales’s Interaction Process Analysis (Bales, 1951) should provide valuable supplementary insights.

8. CONCLUSIONS The major conclusion drawn from our analysis of design collaboration is that there are significant differences between the operational conditions; face-to-face, whiteboard and 3D virtual world, for the generic skills profiles. This was true for the overall design activity of the five teams.

While it is clear that the introduction of virtual technologies has implications for designers, the challenges are not solely technical. Designers bring with them a range of generic skills acquired over the years from a multitude of different activities. These need to be adapted to the new environments they find themselves working in. This is succinctly summarised by Larsson who states that since “design involves communication and interaction between individuals and groups in complex social settings, the social character of design is not separated from the technical results” (Larsson, 2003, p. 153). These technologies impact on the ways designers work and collaborate and hence impact on the skills that need to be brought to bear. The investigations documented in this paper contribute to this body of knowledge by identifying the generic skills of design professionals, profiling some of the impacts of different virtual communication technologies on these skills and identifying some goals which need to be addressed if virtual technologies are to be effective and successful. As Carletta, Anderson and McEwan have stated (2000, p. 1250), technologists are less interested in “social and organizational concerns than in equipment mechanics”. However, without investigating and taking into account the impact of these new design environments, advanced technologies that allow teams to collaborate at a distance may have a deleterious effect on teamwork.

9. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT We wish to acknowledge the Cooperative Research Centre for Construction Innovation (CRC-CI), part of the Australian Government’s CRC program, who funded this project (Project 2002-024-B), and Tom Bellamy, who was one of our researchers.

10. REFERENCES Activeworlds-Corporation. (2008). Active Worlds. Retrieved 28 Sept 2008, from http://www.activeworlds.com/

Bales, R. (1951). Interaction process analysis. Cambridge: Addison-Wesley Press Inc.

Bell, B. S., & Kozlowski, S. W. J. (2002). A typology of virtual teams: Implications for effective leadership. Group and organization management, 27(1), 14 - 49.

Burfield, I., Cadee, N., Grieco, F., Mayton, T., & Spink, A. (2003). The observer: Reference manual ver 5.: Wageningen, Neth: Noldus Information Technology.

Cannon-Bowers, J., Tannenbaum, S., Salas, E., & Volpe, C. (1995). Defining competencies and establishing team training requirements. In R. A. Guzzo & E. Salas (Eds.), Team effectiveness and decision making in organisations (pp. 333 - 380). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Carletta, J., Anderson, A. H., & McEwan, R. (2000). The effects of multimedia communication technology on non-collocated teams: a case study. Ergonomics, 43(8), 1237 - 1251.

Carthey, J., de Leval, M. R., Wright, D. J., Farewell, V. T., & Reason, J. T. (2003). Behavioural markers of surgical excellence. Safety Science, 41(5), 409-425.

ITcon Vol. 14 (2009), Sher et al, pg. 28

Cross, N., Christiaans, H., & K., Dorst. (1996). Introduction: The Delft protocols workshop. Analysing Design Activity. Chichester: John Wiley and Sons.

Dubé, L., & Paré, G. (2004). The Multifaceted Nature of Virtual Teams. In D. J. Pauleen (Ed.), Virtual teams: projects, protocols and processes: Idea Group.

Ericsson, K., & Simon, H. (1993). Protocol analysis: Verbal reports as data (Revised version). Cambridge: MIT Press.

Fletcher, G., Flin, R., McGeorge, P., Glavin, R., Maran, N., & Patey, R. (2003). Anaesthetists' Non-Technical Skills (ANTS): evaluation of a behavioural marker system{dagger}. Br. J. Anaesth., 90(5), 580-588.

Gameson, R., & Sher, W. (2002). An investigation into perceptions of project team dynamics and the utilisation of virtual environments, Association of Researchers in Construction Management (ARCOM) (Vol. 1, pp. 177 - 186). Northumbria University, UK.

Gay, G., & Lentini, M. (1995). Use of Communication Resources in a Networked Collaborative Design Environment. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 1(1), 0-0.

Guerlain, S., Turrentine, B., Adams, R., & Forrest Calland, J. (2004). Using video data for the analysis and training of medical personnel. Cognition, Technology and Work, 6, 131 - 138.

Halliday, M. A. K., & Matthiessen, C. M. I. M. (2004). An Introduction to Functional Grammar (3rd ed.). London: Hodder Arnold.

Kanawattanachai, P., & Yoo, Y. (2002). Dynamic nature of trust in virtual teams. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 11(3-4), 187-213.

Kayworth, T., & Leidner, D. (2000). The global virtual manager: a prescription for success. European Management Journal, 18(2), 183-194.

Kazdin, A. (1982). Single-case research designs. New York: Oxford University Press.

Klampfer, B., Flin, R., Helmreich, R., Hausler, R., Sexton, B., Fletcher, G., et al. (2001, 5 - 6 July 2001). Enhancing Performance in High Risk Environments: Recommendations for the use of Behavioural Markers. Paper presented at the Behavioural Markers Workshop, Swissair Training Centre, Zurich.

Larsson, A. (2003). Making sense of collaboration: The Challenge of thinking together in global design teams. Paper presented at the 2003 International ACM Conference on Supporting Group Work, GROUP 2003, Sannibel Island, Florida. , November 9-12

Maher, M. L. (2002). Team Collaboration in High Bandwidth Virtual Environments. Retrieved 6 Sept 2008, 2008, from http://www.construction-innovation.info/index.php?id=63

Marchman III, J. F. (1998). Multinational, Multidisciplinary, Vertically Integrated Team Experience in Aircraft Design. International Journal of Engineering Design, 14(5), 328 - 334.

Newcastle, U. o. (2008). Training and CPD. Retrieved 13 Oct 2008, 2008, from http://www.construction-innovation.info/index.php?id=1107

Powell, A., Piccoli, G., & Ives, B. (2004). Virtual teams: a review of current literature and directions for future research. SIGMIS Database, 35(1), 6-36.

Pring, T. (2005). Research Methods in Communication Disorders. London: Whurr Publishers.

Rice, P. L., & Ezzy, D. (1999). Qualitative Research Methods: A Health Focus. South Melbourne (Australia): Oxford University Press.

Riedlinger, M. E., Gallois, C., McKay, S., & Pittam, J. (2004). Impact of social group processes and functional diversity on communication in networked organizations. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 32(1), 55 - 79.

Salas, E., Shawn Burke, C., & Cannon-Bowers, J. A. (2000). Teamwork: emerging principles. International Journal of Management Reviews, 2(4), 339-356.

Wallace, W. (1987). The influence of design team communication content upon the architectural decision making process in the pre contract design stages. Edinburgh: Department of Building. , UK, Heriot-Watt University.

Williams, A., & Cowdroy, R. (2002). How designers communicate ideas to each other in design meetings. Proceedings of the 7th International Design Conference DESIGN 2002, Croatia, May 14-17, Vol. 2, 247-

ITcon Vol. 14 (2009), Sher et al, pg. 29

251

Williams, A., & Sher, W. (2007). The alignment of research, education and industry application. IASDR'07: International Association of Societies of Design Research Proceedings, Hong Kong, Hong Kong Polytechnic University, 12 - 15 Nov. Retrieved 9 March 2009, from http://www.sd.polyu.edu.hk/iasdr/proceeding/papers/The%20Alignment%20of%20Research%20Education%20and%20Industry%20Application.pdf